Child's Play Charity Declines Atlantica Online Donation

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
Child's Play Charity Declines Atlantica Online Donation


It's not often that a charity will turn down donations but that's exactly what NDoors Interactive [http://www.childsplaycharity.org/] that it wasn't interested in taking its money.

It happens from time to time: As a result of one impropriety or another, charities are occasionally forced to decline donations from certain individuals or organizations. Sometimes it's simply a matter of optics, such as the Make-A-Wish Foundation's rejection [http://media.www.skidmorenews.com/media/storage/paper1313/news/2009/12/11/News/Charity.Refuses.Club.Donation-3850252.shtml] of a $5000 donation from the Skidmore College Photography Club because the money came from sales of a calendar it felt was "racy or sexually offensive." An MMOG developer making a donation to the game-centric Child's Play, on the other hand, seems like a natural fit.

But these things aren't always as simple as they appear. An initiative by Atlantica Online [http://atlantica.ndoorsgames.com/center/default.asp] studio NDoors Interactive to contribute to Child's Play fell apart in the wake of player complaints, which led the charity to withdraw from the effort. NDoors had put together a "box" containing "some of the rarest items" in the game for the holidays, which it offered for 3999 Gcoins ($40). In the spirit of the holidays, the company also decided to pass along five percent of the sales of the box to Child's Play.

The problem? Five percent is apparently too low in the minds of some gamers, who sent unspecified complaints to the charity that eventually led it to pull out of the program altogether. NDoors Interactive, as you might imagine, isn't too happy about how things have worked out.

"We are saddened to inform you that due to some negative player complaints, Child's Play has regrettably asked to be withdrawn from our efforts to raise money for their cause. We were informed that Child's Play received negative emails from Atlantica Online players around the nature of the donation and the box, causing them to request removal from our fundraising efforts," the company said in a statement [http://atlantica.ndoorsgames.com/center/news/notice_view.asp?list_seq=1371].

"It is incredibly unfortunate that we are unable to give the donation amount that you, our players, raised to this charity due to the negativity of certain players around the nature of the donation and an optional, opt-in purchase," it continued. "While we recognize that not all of our players were negative towards the donation and/or box, it is regrettable that the actions of a few have prevented our players, as a whole, from donating to this cause (we say 'as a whole' because our players can still donate directly, and we encourage you to do so)."

As requested, NDoors has removed all "descriptions, logos and links" related to Child's Play and is now in the process of looking for another charity to support. It's a sad outcome for all involved; some of the complainers may see this as some kind of principled victory but when the ultimate result is simply that a worthwhile charity loses out on support, I have a hard time seeing it as a win for anyone.

Source: Massively [http://www.massively.com/2009/12/31/childs-play-pulls-out-of-atlantica-online-charity-drive-because/]


Permalink
 

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
Its a shame really, but, I suppose thats how things go...

Hope that this dosnt start making people worry when it comes to donation and events for Childs Play.
 

Onyx Oblivion

Borderlands Addict. Again.
Sep 9, 2008
17,032
0
0
Faith in humanity dropped by 1000 more points

Current faith level: - 5,046,057,940,149,000,732,020,451,001,3458
 

Sevre

Old Hands
Apr 6, 2009
4,886
0
0
5% is a bit...low. To be honest, I still don't see why beggar's can be choosy.
 

Crimsane

New member
Apr 11, 2009
914
0
0
On one hand, they're right, 5% is low (~$2 out of $40). On the other, 5% is better than 0%. I'm not sure where to stand on this one.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
I'd immediatly guess that a lot of it has to do with the way they collected the donation and what was said at the time. Without reading the player complaints, it seems to me that $40 is a LOT for any item or set of items even by cash store standards in "free to play" games. I mean you can buy a whole new game for that, even if not a brandy new one with a $50-$60 price tag.

If they implied that ALL of the money from that sale was going towards the charity, and they only gave 5%, I'd be a bit cheezed off too.

It's sort of like how a lot of people give you a "gift" for making a donation, like public television or whatever. Your not so much buying the item, as choosing to donate money and they are giving you something of what amounts to trivial value (worth far less than the donation) as a thank you. Albeit some of that stuff DOES become highly collectible down the road.

So basically if I bought something under these terms, which would be a rip off at that price, but the entire point being the donation, and the guys doing ot chose to pocket most of the money I put down (allowed by ultra fine print or not), I'd be pretty bloody mad at them too.


As far as Child's Play refusing the money, I suspect if they did, it means there was something non kosher here (like what I mention above). Charities want to maintain a good reputation, including in how they raise funds. This means not taking money with criminal ties, or the result of scams. If they were to say take money generated by a scam it would
in some way be giving a certain legitimacy to what was done.

In the case of refusing a donation because of the content of a calander or whatever, I think that's ridiculous, but in the case of a scam that's something else.

I mention the Make A Wish calander (which was mentioned, though I don't know the details) because of similar issues I've heard of. Occasionally you get some sex symbol (model, actress, porn star) who decides they want to do something goods, so they finance a shoot of their own and give the proceeds to charity. In a lot of cases things like that get shot down, though it makes me go "WTF" because in general I'm not sure what they expect a sex symbol to do if that is what they are famous for. In most cases however such money allegedly makes it to the charities anyway via anonymous donation if the person was serious to begin with as opposed to doing it soley for self promotion so they could say "I donated to charity!".
 

Sephiwind

Darth Conservative
Aug 12, 2009
180
0
0
I some what think that 5% is a bit low, espically for something that isn't a physical product, but on the other hand I feel it was a bit silly on Child's Play to decline the donation. I mean seriously, they declined the donation because some people complained to them that the donater wasn't donating enough, so instead of getting $5000 they end up with $0.

I also wonder if this could open up another can of stupidity. I'm pretty sure there were some people who bought the package just for the donation (all be it a pitly amount for the item cost). It's not like they said we will donate to a charity, they were donating to a specific charity, and advertised as such. Now that they can't because the donation was declined will that open them up to some legal problems?

Here is a novel concept. If you disapprove of the amount that is being donate how about complaining to the blo0dy donaters rather then the ones being donated to?
 

Skarvig

New member
Jul 13, 2009
254
0
0
Wow, gamers can be incredibily stupid. 5% is always better than nothing.
 

FallenRainbows

New member
Feb 22, 2009
1,396
0
0
Macksheath said:
Onyx Oblivion said:
Faith in humanity dropped by 1000 more points

Current faith level: - 5,046,057,940,149,000,732,020,451,001,3458
This.

It begs the question of WHY we even give to charity if they don't accept it. So what if it is a low amount? It was still something.
It was not the charity complaining. It was the players themselves.
 

Baby Tea

Just Ask Frankie
Sep 18, 2008
4,687
0
0
Crimsane said:
On one hand, they're right, 5% is low (~$2 out of $40). On the other, 5% is better than 0%.
That's just it! Now they get nothing!
People complained, hoping to get it raised, but now nobody gets anything.
Way to go, guys.

I get it that 5% is low, but tell that to the guys donating, not the charity.
 

GrandmaFunk

New member
Oct 19, 2009
729
0
0
the issue is that they used the charity donation as a marketing tool to sell this 40$ pack.

"something is better than nothing" doesn't always apply when parties are generating profit from these derived donations. Consider that producing this pack of items had close to zero cost for the devs, that means this 2$ donation is helping them make 38$ of pure profit.

and that's kind of scummy.
 

Quadtrix

New member
Dec 17, 2008
835
0
0
If I had made this game, and its online community was like this, I would shut down the servers permanently.
 

Slayer_2

New member
Jul 28, 2008
2,475
0
0
Wait, are these virtual items?!? Why not just stop being cheap and give the charity 100% of the proceeds, it's not like you're losing money off the deal.
 

bakonslayer

New member
Apr 15, 2009
235
0
0
This shows that not all money has the same worth. Keep it classy, Child's Play. It is a very honorable thing.